Why Gay Marriage Isn’t the ’60s Civil Rights Fight

What black Americans suffered is without parallel in our history—a fact all sides of the SSM debate should recognize.

The 20-something me would consider the 30-something me a bleeding-heart liberal. Though I still hate political correctness, I no longer find it valuable to attack PC by charging off in the opposite direction, making insensitive remarks that even if right in fact were so wrong in form. I’m not the first political pundit to use excessive hyperbole. I might be one of the few to admit being embarrassed about it.

This embarrassment is particularly true concerning my own region, the South, where slavery, segregation, and institutional racism left a heavy mark. I still detest those on the left and right who exploit racial tension for their own purposes. But I detest even more the inhumanity suffered by African-Americans in our early and later history. T.S. Eliot said, “humankind cannot bear too much reality,” and it is impossible for those of us living in the new millennium to comprehend that absolute horror of being treated like chattel by your fellow man, or being terrorized by your neighbors, because of the color of your skin.

Books, memorials, and museums will never be able to adequately convey such tragedy, at least not in any manner remotely comparable to the pain of those who lived it.

The debate over gay marriage has been portrayed as the civil rights struggle of our time. I’m generally a supporter of same-sex unions and hold the same view as President Obama—I’m personally for it, but believe it should be decided at the state level. I find it legally objectionable that those in longstanding same-sex relationships do not have the same inheritance, tax, and hospital-visitation rights as straight couples. Whatever the courts or states decide now and in the future, I hope this changes.

That said, gay marriage is simply not on par with the black civil rights struggle. Not even close.

When a group of mostly black protesters stood before the Supreme Court to defend traditional marriage last week, some pundits and social-media commentators wondered how people who once fought for their own civil rights could deny them to others.

For one, these black protesters were Christian. Many American Christians are opposed to gay marriage, and people of faith have as much a place in this debate as anyone else. It is amusing how liberals who preach “diversity” are always surprised when it produces frictions or contradictions, which many on the left found last week in black Americans who oppose gay marriage.

But for these African-American followers of Christ, there were no contradictions.

Race isn’t everything.

I have gay friends who are married. The states in which they reside might not recognize their unions, but their friends and families do, and they generally live their lives in peace. No one is turning water hoses on them. They are not being attacked by police dogs. There is no Bull Connor or Ku Klux Klan. They are not being lynched en masse, drinking at separate fountains, or being ordered to the back of the bus.

This is not to say that gay Americans who wish to have the full benefits of marriage afforded to heterosexual couples don’t face adversity. That’s a major part of the current debate. But it is to say that any hardship they face can’t compare to what black Americans faced 50 or 150 years ago.

There have been instances during the gay-rights movement that arguably could be compared to the black civil rights struggle, like the Stonewall riots of the 1960s or Matthew Shepard murder in 1998. Suicides and other problems related to public attitudes about homosexuality have also unquestionably been a horrible ordeal. Still, with the possible exception of the mistreatment of Native Americans, there has been nothing quite like the systematic exploitation and institutional degradation experienced by earlier black Americans.

My purpose here is not to belittle the fight for gay marriage, only to note that those who keep attempting to draw a reasonable comparison to the struggle of African-Americans are in many ways belittling the black experience in the United States.

Jack Hunter is the co-author of The Tea Party Goes to Washington bySen. Rand Paul and serves as New Media Director for Senator Paul. The viewspresented in this essay are the author’s own.

“But the fact remains that women have not been forced into combat and that no law requires all rest rooms to be unisex. You’re crying wolf.”

As for the first clause, there is now an imbalance in rights and duties that favor women. Women can seek combat roles, and the prestige that derives from them. But, at least for the present, they are not required to put themselves in line for those roles.

Now, when I was a young adult, and talked to an Army recruiter, I was told when asking for an MOS I would have to choose at least one ‘Combat Arms’ speciality. If this is still the procedure, do young women have to do so? I know that, as of yet, there is no talk of having women register for selective service. If that is the case when my son turns eighteen (a ways away), I will seriously think of challenging that system.

Ohhh not the myth of the down low black male. I thought that went the way of ‘crack babies’.

The high rate of infection among black populations remains the exchange and sharing of needles —

The rate of infection among women as to such behavior is grand for news reels but is unsupported. The incidence of black homosexuals is very small less than the gneral population I think. That number may have grown since I checked last. the number one killer among the balck population is that bizarre practice of killing their children in the womb. HIV barely registers.

But none of that is makes a compelling case for same sex unions to become legal marriages.

Just think…fifty years from now, TAC or a similar outlet will have an article about how polygamous marriage isn’t a noble and legitimate cause like gay marriage was, in an attempt to antagonize two Democratic constituencies, and maybe peel off some gay voters. Then again, considering how quickly all this is happening, maybe it’ll only be ten or twenty years from now.

I love how you think that you can destroy all of the cultural institutions that created our society, and not have society collapse.

There seems to be the assumption that we can take our economy, our law enforcement, and our welfare state for granted, and the only issue is how to divvy up what already exists. That we may be undermining the existence of what our society is built on is never considered.

No, there is another [reason for the opposition to consanguineous marriages] as well, and it may have been more important historically: the desire of the church to limit and break up the dominance of ruling clans in the civil order. Such a breakup was a prerequisite to the recovery of a polity that was even remotely democratic.

Of course, that also is not an issue if not for procreation, as the main concern of consanguineous marriages producing clans is of people having a very un-branched family tree, and this is only a concern if the marriages produce children.

“As for the first clause, there is now an imbalance in rights and duties that favor women. Women can seek combat roles, and the prestige that derives from them. But, at least for the present, they are not required to put themselves in line for those roles.”

But your point is still alarmist. As with all changes, different areas of policy need to play catch up. In this situation, it’s unsurprising that little attention has been placed on drafting women, since drafting *men* hasn’t been an issue in nearly half a century. I agree that it is an issue that should be addressed, preferably long before a new draft becomes necessary, but that doesn’t mean inaction can be solely attributed to a double standard.

This is a rather disturbing conversation. I see those that argue the comparison between the suffering of African Americans and that of homosexuals to be ludicrous. I see so many words blathered into some incoherent argument standing up for the plight of the African American compared to that of the homosexual. It is simply illogical to conclude that such a comparison demeans the plight of African Americans. Both have been oppressed, murdered, are still oppressed and murdered because of the marks of birth.

As a youth pastor in the past and a pastor now I’ve seen teenagers rejected by their families, told they are damned to the fires of hell, turn to drugs and other morbid comforts for the pain they’ve endured because of who they are and how they were born. I’ve talked to individuals who, because of how they were born, live a lie to hide from the rejection that is surely to follow them coming out. I hear the stories of the plight of homosexuals across the world that are daily executed for the way they were born. For many homosexuals the battle raging over marriage equality isn’t just about the right to marry but for the symbolism embodied in the message that they are equal, accepted for how they were born, accepted for who they want to love, and no longer seen as lesser people.

“The incidence of black homosexuals is very small less than the gneral population I think. That number may have grown since I checked last. ”

From Gallup, in 2012:
3.4% of all Americans personally identify as gay, bisexual, or transgender.
4.6% of African Americans personally identify as gay, bisexual, or transgender – the highest percentage of any racial or ethnic group included in the study

Liberalization of attitudes toward homosexuality has never resulted in ‘taming’ male homosexuality. Quite the opposite, it has resulted in more promiscuous behavior. Already some of the leading lights of homosexual marriage advocacy are pushing forward non-monogamy (which studies show is the modal praxis for male homosexual marriages).

I think all of this is trying to minimize something that is really a human rights concern. You see I don’t for a moment believe that the struggle for equality is the same as the black struggle for freedom, but I would never minimize it and here is why. You fail to mention that because its treated and taught as a moral wrong people grow up hating themselves. So much so that many around 50% try to kill themselves. The reason most GLBT are not Christian is that the Church has turned them away saying repent of your sins instead of understanding those scriptures better. There are some rather contextual nuances in the Bible which make those scriptures up for debate. Just about the same as the four corners of the earth, the fact that world is not the center of the universe and I could go on. The reason it is being compared to civil rights is because it is a civil right. One group of people are being discriminated against on a huge level and no it should not be up to the state. Equality should be just that equal there should be no vote on that. Separation of Church and state period. If you think there are not issues because of this then you need to put yourself in their shoes and try to see things differently. I had a friend that was with her partner for 40 years and her family would not let her visit her at the hospital on her death bed. What is right about that?

Well gays have been persecuted through out history not just US history. We have had to live in the shadows can’t walk down the street with the love of our lives hand in ours. Can’t get all the benefits of heterosexual couples. And since I am in a bi-national relationship I can’t sponsor my finance to come to the U.S. I don’t believe states should decide just like in the Loving vs. Virginia case you can’t have some states who allow same-sex marriage and some that don’t separate but equal is not constitutional. As a taxpaying American I deserve all the rights not just in some states or state I happen to be in. That is not justice under law!

One more thought. I have to agree with Eric. The issue is not just around marriage but treating people equally. Lots of parents kick there children out on the streets when they find out they are GLBT. Parents seem to think there is justification based on the word of God. Then those children end up on the streets doing drugs, prostitution and what ever to survive. Then there are so many murdered every year. Look up the “Day of Remembrance” next time you feel there are no issues. There needs to be an entire attitude change toward GLBT and this is possibly the first step.

No, ‘complexity’ isn’t going to get you out of this. What is so special about the number two?

What? Get me out of what? I’m not on the hook for monogamy, it wasn’t my idea. We were discussing the notion that marriage had to be maintained in some form that has inhered in it through time and space. I argued that there is nothing that requires a marriage produce a child by way of heterosexual sex.

This was the part of my post that you omitted;

Marriage does not inherently preclude arrangements between relatives, or hasn’t in all times and places. So if you’re making an appeal to a traditional or universal definition of marriage, i don’t think you’re going to find any help in that direction. If you’re asking what vital interest the modern state has in preventing marriage between close relatives, i believe it’s based on public health. That in no way requires married people to procreate.

So, nothing is so special, to me, about the number, 2. What am i supposed to get out of?

Of course it is an insult to you and even to the gay community themselves. They are being used to take away children’s rights in the state takeover / privatisation of parenthood. They are redefining what parenthood means to bring a new trade. The right to found a family remains intact without ‘marrying’ or consummating once the redefinition occurs, so who will provide the children to the couples? By law: the state must do so, the taxpayers will pay the beginning of the baby trade, women become service providers, children slaves purchased.

Marriage is easily defined as parenthood. What came first? The family or the legal institution? Why would this need redefining if you already had the correct definition? Answer: privatisation of the word, takeover of parenthood and all that entails.

Homosexual marriage is the normalization of perversion through the illusion of familiarity. I do not see what the parallel is between race/skin color, which is fixed, and the pseudo-scientific concept of sexual orientation – invented by queer and gender theorists – which is not fixed.

to the CDC report interesting. I have but one response: estimated? —– Now given that HIV is a recordable known, I find it laughable that estimation has any validity here. And I stand by my comments about such individuals passing on HIV to women — which was the point of my response –men on the ‘down low’. I never heard of the term until a few years ago. But nonethe less . . .

to the gallup poll. As I stated, here I granted that the number may have risen since I last checked several years ago. After I clean my hard drive I will decide if it’s worth checking the numbers.

Paul Emmons, I don’t believe that “damn cold comfort” rises to the level of constitutional protection. No doubt, a person who feels they are indelibly attracted to the same sex as their own, and who sincerely wants a life long monogamous partnership, and wants it to be legally recognized as a marriage, would find damn cold comfort in the fact that they are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want.

But the examples you reference make my point: hopes and dreams don’t add up to a constitutional right.

My advice to a child or sibling hoping to marry someone of the same sex would run something like this:

If our state, or the state where you live, or can arrange to live and support you, has such an institution in its laws, and if you think you’ve found your life-long partner, by all means, go ahead, and I will certainly be at your wedding. If we live in a state that makes no provision for you to be married, well, that means that on balance, the community of people making up that state’s constituencies don’t put a priority on doing so. Like it or not, what you feel, and share, is kind of a sideline of human sexuality, no matter how important it is to you. These days, you have a well protected right to live your life as you choose, but you may not get the same legal recognition that you might hope for.

New Flowers:

There IS NO DISCRIMINATION. Nobody wrote marriage laws and then decided to EXCLUDE homosexuals. It never crossed anyone’s mind that homosexuality had anything to do with marriage.

The right “to marry” was the right to enter into a contract or covenant called marriage, which consisted of a man joining with a woman. There is NO basis in Loving v. Virginia to find that this meant, by any logical extension of the actual decision of the Court, the right to call a bond with anyone you want a “marriage.” That’s just not there.

The DEFINITION of marriage NEVER included any reference to ethnicity. The CRIME of Mr. and Mrs. Loving was precisely that they WERE MARRIED. Whether you like it or not, the definition of marriage is that it codifies a specific relationship between a man and a woman. Congress hasn’t excluded anyone — congress has no authority to pass marriage laws. That is reserved to the states. All congress can do is pass laws about federal employment and taxes, and how state marriage laws do or do not modify same.

No state has EXCLUDED anyone from marrying. State laws simply define what it is that ANY individual adult is able to enter into. “Christian morality” has nothing to do with it either.

Federal laws also attach benefits to having children. Why can’t I have equal right to those benefits, just because I don’t have a child? (Someone once answered “Have a kid.” Well, I could equally well say to a gay person “Marry someone of the opposite sex.” Incidentally, most of the “benefits” are allowances for the costs and stress of marriage, and for the burdens of raising a family — which may not apply in the same way to gay couples. They aren’t really “benefits.”

Sandy:

I think you offer some important points. But they do not pertain to marriage, per se. Yes, its a problem that people grow up hating themselves. Yes, one cause of it is parents who teach that homosexuality is wrong. Another is that parents throw a daughter out for becoming pregnant. There are others.

There really is no way our government can prevent a church from teaching that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong, any more than the government can prevent a church from teaching that consuming alcohol is wrong, or that eating pork or crab or oysters is wrong, or wearing make-up is wrong, or eating meat on Fridays or during Lent is wrong, or that fornication is wrong. We can hope or advocate that such churches find ways to teach that without implicitly teaching self-hatred. But there is no constitutional right not to hear the church teach what it believes.

There are issues, but again, these issues do not create or address a constitutional right. There is no issue of “equality.” There is an issue of desire for recognition. Right now, if the Prop 8 issue is returned to the people of California, quite likely a majority would vote to repeal it. So be it. I have no argument with that. That’s how it should happen. There is a constitutional right to be left alone, to equal access to whatever the state does legislate, but not to demand legislation offering the approbation of the community.

I would actually agree that the concept of sexual orientation as IDENTITY is far from scientifically established. Its a very new idea, sociall and culturally. I wouldn’t call homosexuality a perversion, and even if it is, I believe Lawrence v. Texas was rightly decided: the individuals concerned have a right to live their lives and be responsible for their own choices. Homosexuality is, objectively, a deviation from the norm of the human species, biologically. Its an irrelevant side show.

Sexuality functions through a rather imprecise biochemical mechanism. There are XXY, XYY (not positive about the latter), there are apparently more subtle ways that genes, hormones, and life experience can result in genuine and deeply felt emotions that don’t conform to the primary evolutionary pattern. But we don’t know enough to say with certainty, outside a current cultural context which MAY turn out to be a passing fad, that homosexuality forms a fundamental and enduring identity.

As to your comments. I will forego a search because, I am ok with the fact that those numbers are up By ok, I mean, I will take your poll data –with some reluctance because it really is not pertinent to my response.

That is that the ‘down low’complaint that these men are responsible for the spread of HIV among women simply incorrect. And your combining the stats as to the variation of choices men make about their expression clouds the ‘down low’ issue. Because they certainly would not comprise all homosexual black males as you yourself dilineates.

Finally, while I forrayed into the matter. None of those observations support legalized marriages between people of the same sex. If anything it suggests a whole lot of additional caution.

“Mr. Helveticka, gays don’t have to be “poor and disadvantaged” to have a legitimate argument about discrimination by the State. It’s absurd to claim that because you think a majority of them is well-off, they don’t have a moral or legal claim to the same rights and benefits as straight couples.”

First of all, it’s TRUE that as a group, gays and lesbians are not economically disadvantaged. If there is so much ‘discrimination”, they why are they so well-to-do compared to the general population. It’s not my opinion, it’s a FACT.

Lampo sez: “It is also absurd to claim that private legal agreements between same sex couples have the same legal weight as those that come with the marriage license. The former can be overriden easily by family members who don’t approve, and that’s happened many times.”

First of all, it’s not absurd, it’s a FACT—as if you ignored the AIDS crisis, when these legal agreements were established in courts across the country. NO, they cannot be overridden by family members as they are established many times over in courts of law.

Secondly, the assertion YOU made is that gays and lesbians have NO legal means or legal recognition of their intimate relationships outside of marriage. Which is not true, as has been previously established by gay men during the AIDs crisis.

Third, the benefits of marriage that go beyond the established legal recognition of co-habitation agreements, power of attorney, and private property rights are really about protecting children, about giving special benefits to those who can have and raise children.

Now you might protest that gays and lesbians CAN have children—it’s sort of silly to assert that’s the same as natural childbirth.

Lesbians Fertilize an egg from one partner with the sperm of a brother of the other partner, and then insert it into the first partner to bring the child to birth. You call this “family”? The actual father is the brother of one partner, while the mother is not the woman who brought the child to birth, but her partner.

It’s even more convoluted with gay men, who borrow an egg from a sister of one partner, fertilize it with the sperm of the other partner, and hire a women to bring it to term.

Now if you want to call a medical advancement co-opted by homosexuals to copy that which they are by biological design unable to have—children—a “family”, then you are so outside reality and the norms of rational people, that’s there is no use even continuing to discuss it with you.

What’s amazing to me is how homosexuals can RATIONALIZE any facts away to justify their sexual preferences.

“For many homosexuals the battle raging over marriage equality isn’t just about the right to marry but for the symbolism embodied in the message that they are equal, accepted for how they were born, accepted for who they want to love, and no longer seen as lesser people.”

Thank you for finally admitting that gays want marriage, not for “rights” but for “acceptance”.

While we might have sympathy for gays and lesbians suffering from rejection by family and community, this is a free country. And like others, they can assert their free will, move to the big cities and create a life for themselves. Rather then focus on the suffering of gays in our culture, I might remind you that many–if not most–have established successful lives for themselves. As a group, they are wealthier then the overall population—and certainly not economically disadvantaged like blacks and browns. They are over-represented in elite professions like fashion, art, and media, as well as medicine and law. They have successfully established legal recognition of their unions in private co-habitation agreements, power of attorney and private property rights.

If gays and lesbians think they can win “acceptance” by forcing the redefination of marriage to include their lovers and partners, they are sadly mistaken.

They will just engender more hate by the perception that their ELITIST standing can override the views of the traditional folk values that most of the rest of us embrace.

Our current “definitions” of marriage are half a century old. What definition is it that you are referencing when it comes to marriage? Oh, let me guess. You adopt the definition that you suppose best suits you and your view of society? Well, society has been around for quite some time and marriage has been many things to many people. The “institution” of marriage has evolved from polygamous, patriarchal systems, to monogamous patriarchal family trade, to a time now when the couple are the facilitators of the relationship.

I’m sure you’d like to define many things but if you think heterosexuals such as yourself think they can win “acceptance” by forcing their definition of marriage to not include lovers and partners, then you are sadly mistaken.

As has been proven thus far by the radical changes in thought on the issue of gay marriage, as we now see GOP lawmakers “changing their minds”, states adopting gay marriage hurriedly, and well-known religious leaders coming out in support of gay marriage, they will engender more hate by the perception that their “holier than thou” standing can override the views of a changing society that now, according to polls and all kinds of other data, values marriage equality.

Only two people in the world, obligated by law upon the birth of a child to provide and care for that child. The woman who gave birth and the man who fathered the child. Presumed to be the husband if the woman is married to a man. 1000s of years of civilization has encouraged heterosexual couples to marry so that when a child is born, the only two people in the world obligated to provide and care for the child are in the home, working together to do so. Because the most frequent alternative is a child born to a single woman and absent or unknown fathers. Government doesnt prefer heterosexual couples raising children. They prefer BIOLOGICAL parents raising their children because they are the only ones obligated by law to provide and care for those children. NOT simply because biological parents arent homosexual.

Gay marriage creates the absurd situation where biological parents and homosexual parents are given equal preference when it comes to raising children. While the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their children/grandchildren for a decade are somehow unworthy of such a preference thats only given to those seeking a gay marriage.

If the gays and courts want to forever seperate procreation from marriage and claim that marriage is about fostering the formation of stable homes, they will need SOME justification for excluding the single mother and grandmother. I dont mind marriage equality, marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage but have a big problem with using purposeful discrimination so that gays can feel better about their sexuality

“Thank you for finally admitting that gays want marriage, not for “rights” but for “acceptance”.

Yep, a new constitutional right to “respect” from you and dignity for themselves. From the Inre Marriage case in California

the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation….

impinges upon this privacy interest, and may expose gay individuals to detrimental treatment by those who continue to harbor prejudices that have been rejected by California society at large…..

fundamental interest of same-sex {Page 43 Cal.4th 847} couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples….

entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage…

couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families,…

designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect….

same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple….

the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships….

by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership — pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry….

right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples….

the state’s assignment of a different name to the couple’s relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple’s relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled….

the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples….

I absolutely agree with this analysis 100%. I am for equality in marriage but I draw the line in comparing it to the subjugation of an entire race of people for 200 plus years. It is just not the same. My brother is gay and he is educated, has never been denied a vote, has lived with his partner for 20 years and has dealt with little persecution since high school. Anyone who has studied the institution of slavery understands it directly caused the breakdown of the family and coupled with the denial of education and finances it is still effecting African American families today.

I argued with him last night about this very topic. He views both issues as the same. I wanted him to explain to me why it was the same but I was dismissed and met with anger. He could not defend it because it is not defensible.

The Supreme Court is hearing two landmark cases that could decide the course of gay marriage in this country for years to come. In this even, it is not comparable to the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education which reversed Plessy vs. Ferguson. That case was not won in one grand court event. It took several lower court victories. It was historically described as chipping away at Plessy. Many great leaders made this happen. Charles Hamilton Houston won many but died before Thurgood Marshall won in the Supreme Court in 1954.

Again, I do not aim to take away from the plight of the gay rights activists, I just believe that it should be done by comparing it to the Civil Rights Movement but by thanking and recognizing the hard work of the men and women who made this fight not as tough as it could be.

Gotta love conservatives who are drinking the kool aid.
(As to what they are trying to conserve, beats me.)
Homosexuals have the same civil rights as anybody else. That they choose not to avail themselves of the right to get married as it has traditionally been recognized is nobody’s fault, but theirs. (I know. My bad. Personal responsibility in the Age of the Perennial Victim is so hateful.)

Likewise, yeah, the D word. Discriminashun.
Get used to it. The institution of marriage necessarily discriminates against all those who aren’t married. So much for the “civil rights” of those who are single/unmarried heterosexual or homosexual.

Visitation, inheritance etc. aren’t any reason to dismantle/redefine the fundamental unit in society above the individual. Neither do we make law from hard examples or exceptions. Two daddies or two mommies is not the same thing as a mommy and a daddy. Period.

Yeah, I know, art. insem. or adoption levels the playing field. And milk comes from the store.

The only thing this all has to do with civil rights is that after the French Enlightenment everybody has a civil right – not to the same opportunity – but to the same outcome. Equal opportunity has been redefined on the stealth as equal outcome.

And just like the bleeding heart disingenuous white lib progressives that had to vote for Geo. W. Obama in order to have any cred with their fellow yuppies that they weren’t raciss, we get to hear the same thing re. marital rights for sodomites and lesbians.

But what’s so transgressive if now all the homosexuals want to imitate the bourgeois institution of marriage? Seems to me that would take all the cachet away.

Besides if somebody wants the freedom to redefine an institution that is bigger and been around longer than all of parties for and against, than that means everybody else is free to do likewise, the heterosexuals as well as the homosexuals.

Oh, but that won’t do?
Please.
Read The Pink Swastika and get back to me about fascism later.

Bottom line all the same sexers want to do is cut the line ahead of same family and more than one person at the same time unions. But again, baby, marriage is what it is or all bets are off and anything goes, if we are going to be fair about it.

Pastor Warner sed: “Well, society has been around for quite some time and marriage has been many things to many people. The “institution” of marriage has evolved from polygamous, patriarchal systems, to monogamous patriarchal family trade, to a time now when the couple are the facilitators of the relationship.”

Okay, so you want to bring back polygamy as well as “gay” marriage?

Whether “polygamy”–which I guess you support as well—or monogamy, marriage was always about man and woman, sex for procreation, etc.

So now you want to change the defination to exclude procreation—oh yeah, YOUR definition of marriage now includes 3 people—maybe four.

Gay Marriage model one: The lesbian couple and the male sperm donor—which has be to a family member if they want the child to be genetically related to both lesbians. 3 people.

Gay Marriage model three: The gay male couple and their egg donor, which has to be a family member if the child is going to be related to both husbands. That’s three people, not including their female surrogate. That’s three again.

Gay Marriage Model four: The gay male and their female friend egg donor—not including their female surrogate….That’s three again…

Mark sed: “Yep, a new constitutional right to “respect” from you and dignity for themselves. From the Inre Marriage case in California…the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation…”

Well, you cannot legislate “respect”…all you are going to accomplish is more antipathy to gays and lesbians.

No, the California law does not discrimate for sexual orientation, it just says marriage is about male and female and procreation and family. Gays and lesbians cannot procreate—except by bizarre extraordinary medical procedures.

If the law said you can fire someone for being gay, or deny them housing and accomodation, that would be discrimination.

Gays and lesbians have all the rights of anyone else…property rights, protection from violence, ability to have legal agreements recognized by the court system.

The California law does not do any of these things. If the law said that co-habiitation agreements, power of attorney and private property rights were denied to gays and lesbians, that would be discrimination. If it said that gays and lesbians would be denied protection from violence then that would be discrimination…

But the California law does none of these things. It only defines marriage as male and female….

blacks were considered non citizen of the U.S for pretty much all the times they lived here until late 1960’s. Were homosexuals denied citizenship and called 3/8 of a citizen?
blacks were slaves, and they worked in hard labor for almost 420 yrs. Were homosexuals in America treated the same?

blacks were killed or punished if found showing any sign of learning how to read and write. Were Homosexuals not allowed education and knowledge?
black had separate bathroom, sink, housing, neighborhood, clothes, buses. were homosexuals classified the same? did they have to sit in the back of the bus and give up their sits to a white person just because they were ‘homo’?

a black person was born black. he doesn’t have to hide his color. but a homosexual can look just like anybody. what they do in secret, no one has to know, but a black man doesn’t have to hide who he is and how he looks. he is just black.

blacks were hanged, tortured, raped, had dogs sickened to them, enslaved from their motherlands, have their ancestry names taken from them so they can have new names given them by their new masters. Were homosexuals robbed from their lands, enslaved, raped, hanged, given new name by their new masters??

You see, I have no problem for individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle fighting for their rights from the government concerning that they are denied certain privileges that pertains to “civil union”, but I REFUSE to hear ANYONE compare black struggles in the U.S.A to the struggles homosexuals face. Besides, I thought homosexuals come from all races. If they want to compare their struggles for ‘civil union’ and other benefits, then they need to find something else to compare.

The fundamental issue with comparing homosexuality and being any race is that race is genetically based. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is genetically based. And those that insist such false things are true only diminish their cause.
In addition, homosexuals were not and are not considered partially human as Blacks LEGALLY were. Killing a gay person is considered killing a person. Killing a Black person was not.
Do homosexuals face prejudice? Yes. Everyone faces prejudice. I face prejudice for the way I dress. People get bullied for the silliest things. But just because you are bullied, it does not equate your cause to genocide. By in large, Americans do not think a person is less of a human because they are gay. The issue people have w/ gay marriage is morality. It is the same issue w/ abortion and drugs. And telling someone, who is respectful to everyone, they are as morally corrupt as Hitler b/c they do not believe joining two people of the same sex is the way God, nature, or the founders intended is a bit extreme.
Last point, the civil rights movement did not have to change the definition of being human. It had to undo the manipulation of the definition slave-owners created. With gay marriage, we are changing the definition of marriage, an institution that has been around since the beginning of civilization. In past “liberal” societies, homosexuals were free to live as they chose, but were not considered married, and there was no uproar over “civil rights”. Even in places where a large portion of men practiced homosexuality (ex. Roman empire)

There is no correlation between unjust discrimination due to race, and discriminating between acts that respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person and acts that do not. Every human person has the inherent unalienable Right to be treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public, which is what God Has Always intended.

As the mother of a daughter who developed a same-sex sexual attraction as the result of the perfect storm, it is because I Love my daughter as I Love all my children, that I desire that she learn to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love.

All of us have disordered inclinations of various types and degrees, some more difficult to overcome than others; it is not a sin to have a disordered inclination, it is a sin to not desire to overcome our disordered inclinations and accept God’s Gift of Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy.